pledges. plus, today's news, your calls, e-mails, and tweets, next on "washington journal." ♪ host: could morning and welcome on this wednesday, june 13, 2012. the ceo of j.p. morgan it is will testify before the banking committee today and c-span will cover that live at 10:00 this morning. ron barbour will be the new congressman representing arizona replacing gabrielle giffords. eric holder defended himself before the senate judiciary committee as his resignation was called for. we want to get your opinion on his tenure. how does he compared to past

attorneys general? you can also find us online - you can also join the conversation on facebook. or you can even tell us. email us. here is the headline from "the post" this morning --

what do you think of the face- off that happened yesterday in the senate committee and generally how do you think the attorney general has done? first, let's look at a couple of other stories in the news related to this. this is " the new york times" -

before we get to calls, let's look at an exchange between the attorney general anne centre cornyn from texas yesterday. >> i am afraid we have come to an impasse, the leaking of classified information represents a major threat to our national security and your office faces a clear conflict of interest yet you won't appoint a special counsel. it will not support a truly independent investigation and you want take threats seriously. meanwhile, used to resist coming clean about what you knew and when you with regard to operation fast and furious. not cooperate with congressional investigation and you will not hold anyone including yourself accountable for your department blocks state from implementing attempts to come back voter

frsaud. in my view, you have failed to perform the duties of your office. it is more with sorrow than anger that you leave me no alternative but to join those who call upon you to resign your office. >> this is the ninth time i have answered questions before a congressional committee about fast and furious. i am the attorney general. these are tactics that were used. an attorney general in respected more was briefed on these kind of activities and did nothing. i am also the attorney general called on an inspector general to investigate this matter.

i'm also the attorney general to make personnel changes at atf and the u.s. attorney general's office to oversee changes of processes and procedures to make sure this does not happen ever again. i don't have any intention of resigning. host: attorney general eric holder defending his record in front of center cornyn of texas and other members of the committee. let's see what you have to say about this caller: good morning, this is all political and they are trying to get him out because of a voter suppression and what is going on in florida and other places. that is why they want to get him out. he is doing a great job as far as i'm concerned. nobody did anything during the bush administration so this is

all political. host: let's hear from an independent caller from wisconsin. caller: i think eric holder is very effective. host: why is that? caller: because he is doing the best job he can do and the republicans -- is just really political -- it's just like when the last attorney-general was very corrupt. host: how'd you think this will play out? what do you think happens next? caller: i think our president should stand by him because he has been very effective. host: let's look at a couple of facebook comments --

republicans are calling for his resignation. darrell issa is head of the oversight committee and wants to see if he can be taken to task by congress. we will look back at the history of other attorneys general. this is from " the new york times" - that is the story from 2007. democrats' line, hi - caller: mr. gonzales stonewalled

a congressional hearing. he said he did not know or words to that effect. eric holder is asking all the questions that have passed and has been very forthright and has been very effective as a prosecutor. the republicans are trying to suppress the latinos and blacks and poor voters and that is was going on in this country. host: indianapolis, go ahead. caller: this whole notion that republicans are trying to deny people their right to vote is ludicrous. indiana has a voter i.d. law and we have seen time and again access to the polls, by

partisanship, both parties agree. i think eric holder beyond the fact -- the fast and furious issues, i think this administration cost is unconstitutional. host: good morning. caller: good morning, i'm a first-time caller. i would like to make a few comments. regard her -- regarding senator cornyn's questioning of attorney general holder yesterday, i thought senator cornyn who is also a former prosecutor and state attorney general in texas should recognize that any person who was a sworn member of the bar needs to uphold all law

and if our highest official who is there to prosecute loss for this country - laws for this country cannot be charged with carrying out his duty to uphold laws of the country, we have a serious problem on our hands. i thought the senator's effort to call into question mr. holder's efficacy as far as doing that, i thought that was completely political attack. it falls into line with darrell issa in the house and senator mccain. i can see that coming from senator mccain who was not an attorney but for someone like senator cornyn who is an attorney, i thought he should be more guarded in his commentary

especially when it comes to calling for someone to resign their positions. i would say that mr. holder has done a good job and has taken on some very tough issues in a tough political climate. everybody understands that the attorney general certainly has the ear of the president but he is independent. i think mr. holder has shown he has taken on tough issues and an independent view as a swarm attorney general to uphold laws of the country. >host: this is from twitter --

what do you a thing? democrats' line -- caller: i have been listening to eric holder and i feel since the inception, he was under attack by the republicans, senator cornyn and the south carolina senator. i feel the center court and should consider resigning because of the vile and contentious manner in which he is tried to break down our society. i feel the balance of honesty and hard working has been compromised. mr. holder has upheld the constitution more than senator cornyn.

out of 10 questions, he does not give him a chance to answer one. mr. holder has not been given a fair chance. the gunrunning started under the bush administration. it was not addressed properly. it is a political witch hunt against mr. holder and it is not fair. host: ohio, independent caller, good morning. caller: can everybody remember alberto gonzalez and how corrupt the bush and administration was? they got away with everything. this man has been so low key and all of a sudden, the obama administration is in the cross hairs. we have a serious problem in washington and we cannot depend on these people to look out as

far as breaking ball. the ethics committee, where are they? we need an independent ethics committee. how can a crook and a liar prosecute a crook and a liar? host: how you think the attorney general's time has compared to others like janet reno. >> i am a veteran. i have been all over the world. caller: we condemn other governments for what our own governments are doing. the only way anything can get done is if we, the american people, for these people out of office. they have ways -- i am just dumbfounded. i'm waiting for us to wake up, thank you. host: chicago, illinois, democrats line.

caller: i think the senate and house which are republicans, all of them the two resigned. they're not doing their job. they're wasting taxpayers' time and money trying to get attorney-general holder to resign for what? because he is going after voter fraud? if he was going after anything else and i don't think this stuff is being lead from the white house. the republicans have an agenda. they know they can't win this race on merit because their candidate stands for nothing. host: what do you think about attorney general holder compared to janet reno? caller: the man has turned over hundreds of documents. he has done everything short of turning over stuff to senator

cornyn. host: let's hear from a republican from union city, tennessee, good morning. caller: he needs to step down from office. in florida, he instigated the black panthers down there and had a contract for murder and did nothing. in arizona, they are protecting our borders and people, murder down there and he has done nothing. we have people coming over for mexico and he does nothing. he is covering obama's back. host: this is from "the new york

times." norcross, ga., independent line, good morning. caller: one of the things that i just don't get with the republicans is they cannot name and a thing, not one thing, that

attorney general eric holder did wrong. all they are doing is whining and crying about what he won't do. for senator cornyn to say that about the voter purge in florida and yet he is supposed to be asking questions about what went on with fast and furious. why are they talking about the same thing? the republicans say they don't want to do for america. the only thing they want to do is stall and obstruct because anything good for america is good for president obama. they are just bathetic and i need to leave this man alone and let him do his job. all these republicans calling in going on and on about attorney

general being a liar and he should be out. the republicans need to resign and let other republicans get in there who can say yes and continue to move this country forward, thank you. host: let's listen to a little more of the exchange between senator cornyn and attorney general holder. [video clip] >> i did hire him as a u.s. assistant district attorney. >> would it surprise you to know he is a political contributor to the president obama campaign and do you serve and i volunteer? and some -- and serves as a volunteer? >> i am confident he is the ability, capacity to investigate this case in a non-partisan, independent, throw, and aggressive way. >> the question is whether you

have the independence and ability to conduct an investigation if all this comes back through you and giving your track record. did not ask you a question. i will give you a chance to respond. >> my record stands for itself and ice have shown a capacity to investigate people within the administration. we have brought cases on them- >> let's not filibuster the time -- host: that was yesterday. coming up next, with a dallas, texas on the line, good morning. caller: good morning, i agree with everything everyone has said. they started out and what can

they investigate in four days? i think the republicans will lead to that. d that, then they talk about fast and furious. i am disappointed with the democrats. only one democratic senator stood up for the way they talked to him. host: do you third more democrats should be coming to the attorney general's defense? caller: yes, this is nothing but a witch hunt. i am a democrat. right is right and wrong is wrong. just like the border control, the woman from tennessee was lying sent eric holder was

bringing in kids from mexico. this is craziness. who went to jail? the people from america. let them bring that up. host: we're having a conversation about how effective you think the attorney general is. let's talk about what is happening today in the senate. we will hear testimony from the banking committee with jamie dimon, the ceo of j.p. morgan shares ended $2 billion loss and you can watch that live it 10:00 and cspan and find out more and our website, c-span.org. we have the victoria mcgrain to speak about this. guest: thanks for having me. host: this is his first trip to capitol hill since we found that

the j.p. morgan chase had these major losses. what do you expect to hear from him today? guest: we saw his prepared testimony and he is trying to strike a balance between being contrite -- he is very sorry and the feels terrible for losing this money, he messed up. we will hear more about how the master of but he is clearly not going to be punching bag. if he feels terrible the lost the money -- he feels terrible that they lost the money but he wants to put it in perspective. no klein money was ever put at risk. -- notes client money was ever put at risk. i think you'll see that

throughout the question and answer period, strike a respectful tone but this is not a man who is likely to roll over. commentse will sasee about policy positions he has taken. host: your report in your store this morning that the combative jamie dimon may or may not keep his cool. how do members of congress look to use this moment to push their own agendas? guest: that is often what these hearings are four members of

congress, not all of them. some of them will try to make policy points. everybody is paying attention today. there is a certain amount of each side trying -- some folks want to get their quotations in the paper and on the evening knonews. there may be some comments out of the blue. i think the rhetoric is the big part. the co testifying is the kind of -- the ceo testifying, you don't get phased by personal attacks or harsh words that might happen. host: do you expect to learn

anything new from this? you've got and the sense that we may learn more. >> maybe a little on the margin. j.p. morgan has been very clear there is an internal review that they are doing. they say it will not be ready until mid july. with their earnings call and that may lead to a tense moments in the hearing. senators want more specifics and jamie dimon is not prepared with them yet. host: thanks for talking with us. you can watch the hearing happening today on cspan as jamie dimon, ceo of j.p. morgan chase, testifies in front of the senate banking committee.

our discussion this morning is how effective is the attorney general. there has been a call for him to resign by members of the republican congress. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. eric holder probably is the most effective by janet reno and the clinton administration might give him a run for his money. he is were the most effective attorney general's we have had in the united states. i would agree with most of the callers that he is a master at promoting the obama chicago- style of politics under saul alinsky's model.

from the voter fraud that wasn't pursued an immigration into the country and the cover-up of the fast and furious, the attorney general is turning a blind eye to search for truth and being very deceptive. i would apply the same comment to him as an article that was written for "the whistle-blower "magazine. you couldn't answer to eric holder's name in this article. he said," obama is a master of redefining words." you have heard the commentators on the talk shows that said that it boils down to what is

the definition of is. host: let's here from st. louis, missouri, independent line. caller: my thing with eric holder is -- back last year around maybe september, they had brought this same thing up about [unintelligible] the republicans tried so much to intimidate this a guy. even president obama, it's the same with what is going on with

his presidency. the president wants to work by partisan with the republicans and that's all i have to say. host: democratic caller, maryland, hi. caller: i don't like the attitude of the republican senators with eric holder. host: you said you were disturbs? caller: yes, the questioning was very disrespectful and i found it hard why the senator would refer to former attorney general. all the adjectives i found it disturbing.

we hold our centers to a higher level, therefore in these meetings, [unintelligible] i was really impressed with the democratic senators. i just want the republicans to understand this is just politics.

everybody knows that they're no longer is an osama bin laden. host: we will take some more calls in a moment. let's take a look at some other stories. this is the headline in the "the arizona early star." he was a box -- behind-the- scenes bureaucrat to a u.s. congressman. primary is set up key races in virginia, ariz., and south

carolina. we will watch how those battles on full -- unfold. this is from "the baltimore sun"-

a couple of stories in politics, two campaigns are chasing a fund at a frantic pace, says " the new york times."

president obama clarified what he meant by that and the campaign is using that to its advantage. let's talk about are: what you about his tenure, boca raton, fla.,hi. caller: let me just say that i thought alberto gonzales was not any good either and i felt he had to go. i think i am a little bit more capable of having a modicum of objectivity as opposed to most of your callers. the colors are just partisan --

the callers are just partisan democrats or just ignorant. eric holder is a partisan political hack. he pardoned mark rich, who is a very wealthy he is either incompetent or corrupt. i watched him on c-span yesterday. he was not responsive to the questions asked. eric holder probably perjured himself on fast and furious. he selectively decides the people that he wants to go after when he makes his decisions. he is definitely not unbiased. he did not turn over the relevant documents.

it doesn't make any difference how many times you've testified or what things do turn over, you don't turn over what you are asked for. that would be like if i had a problem with the irs may ask me for 2008 tax returns and i gave in 2012. he does not answer the questions. host: ken an independent cold air from coast to mesa, california. caller: hello. it is amazing to me how the republican party can put on this outrage about things in general. i learned that an early age that outraged is the refuge of the scoundrel. they will make a big failing out

of everything to detract from the fact that they are the party of no and there is no way our country will go forward and do progress of things as long as the republican party as any ability to throw something into the gears to make it happen. it is sad, it is just tragic. host: this is from twitter -- here is another california call, democrats line. caller: good morning. anytime there is a democratic administration in office, a conservative right wing is in this country does everything in their power to discredit them. would be in the interest of this country for attorney general holder to investigate some of

these activities by the right wing in this country. sea people showing up a democratic rally is packing guns. they should investigate where the money is coming from for citizens united. they are just repeating the same lies and talking points. some of the republican callers are ignorant and calling people names. they are going crazy with hating this black man for bringing a president and anyone associated

with him. they tried to discredit carter, and the democrat -- any democrat. it is time for people to stand up and started investigating these republicans. i think they are of very dangerous group of people. host: this is a comment via t witter - here are some e-mails --

mount vernon, washington, independent -- caller: a want to make sure american knows and lessons to what the republicans are saying. they are saying can we afford four more years of this tex? that's what it boils down to. we cannot afford four more years of republican obstructionism. host: raleigh, n.c., a republican line. caller: good morning. mr. holder has been attorney general for 3.5 years.

no matter how bad he is perceived to be, why is he not doing a job that should have been done before he came into office? if everything was always shipshape, how did he get so backlogged in 3.5 years. in all of my 82 years, i have heard and still believe [inaudible] you hear so much noise now because that wagon is empty on the republican side to. host: independent caller from tallahassee, florida. caller: thank you for cspan. i think attorney general holder is doing a fabulous job.

we are watching the voter i.d. lot in the african-american community. we should be coming together as a country, not divided. you cannot divide this country. all of us have to live in this country together and we will work together. that's all i have to say. host: this is from twitter -- here's a couple funnel stores in the news --

-- final stories in the news -- dennis roth ways in --

from "the washington journal -- from "the washington post" - drones, americans are uneasy with some uses of them with privacy concerns. "usa today" has more about that on their op-ed pages.

in the obituary section of "the wall street journal, "the only woman to win the nobel prize has died. she had research suggesting people can cooperate lead manage common resources like fisheries or force without relying on government intervention or privatization. she was an indiana university independent political science professor. coming up next call will get the regulation of wall street and the financial market with dennis later on this morning, grover norquist joins us as well. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, this weekend on book-tv, follow the journey of walking in the president's footprints. this is sunday starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern them live at 7:30, he takes your calls and questions and this weekend, conservative commentator johna goldberg talks about the tyranny of cliches. >> america has this idea that the further away mogilev, the closer you get to bed things. -- before their way you move to the left, the closer you get too bad things. >> that is sunday night at 9:00

on book-tv on c-span 2. it has been 40 years since the watergate scandal began and this weekend, cspan rita will ever recorded conversations between president richard nixon and members of his staff concerning the breakdown. >> we have a cancer close to the presidency that is growing. it is growing daily. it is growing geometrically. >> hear more of the nixon tapes this saturday s 6:00 p.m. eastern and you can listen in washington, d.c. on 90.1 or on

cspan radio.org. host: deniis kelleher is president and ceo of better markets. this is how " the new york times" describes you a story -- do you do? guest: we're a nonprofit organization based in washington, d.c. "the work with financial markets for it will work with regulators to get the rules right. we promote transparency, accountability, and over said. our mission is to provide wall street from engaging in reckless conduct that would cause more bailouts and risk to our economy as we saw in 2008 to. host: you work out of the k street office which as many

lobbyists but you have a different mission. guest: i worked in the senate for a number of years. i also work for a law firm where i worked on corporate misconduct. when i was leaving the senate, thought of other things to do. there are two big controversial issues that i thought merited more work. one was financial reform. given my background, i thought somebody needed to be out there fighting for the public interest which is not represented very well to what is the richest industry in the world which is wall street. the public interest is not very well represented. host: this is the new york times story from a couple of weeks ago --

how do you get your perspective heard? guest: there is fairly open reception for the other side of the story. the drum beater on the other side is itself interested one. given what happened in the financial crisis, let's not forget that began on wall street was essentially created by wall street bus wreck was gambling in investments and trading and resulted in some deregulation over the prior couple of decades. i think the financial crisis and economic damage it has done to this country has made people more receptive to listen to those who are bringing an

informed perspective to the other side of the story. host: we will see jamie dimon testified before congress today. does the law have on this? jamie dimon said it was internal housekeeping. he said it's not like the average american person talk a hit. guest: people say is only $2 billion. it is not necessarily the exact amount. the real issue is that this bank, less than four years after the biggest financial crisis since the great depression which has devastated this country and american families from coast to coast and has stuck the next generation with a multi trillion dollar bill to clean up the last crisis and four years

later, the so-called best bag and best ceo in america, has no idea what is going on in his own bank? as a nice illustration of the problem with too big to fail banks. you cannot possibly know was going on the banks and you cannot manage the risk. that is why these things surprise everybody including the ceo. host: you work for a nonprofit organization based in d.c. in global and financial markets. if you'd like to join the conversation, the phone numbers are on your screen. you're talking about these banks that are too big to fall and the in her and dangers. how would you change the system?

>> the first thing i would do is we introduce capitalism to wall street. walter is the only place in the united states or if you fail, you of living as a business or you have bad luck, you actually don't fail. you've fallen to the comforting arms of the federal reserve bank and the u.s. taxpayer. the too big to fail by some wall street also get all sorts of subsidies from the government. that allows them to compete unfairly against the rest of the banks in this country. that violates the basic rules of capitalism. everywhere else except for wall , if you fail, you lose everything. you don't get subsidies like what they get on wall street and you should take for the

subsidies to when these banks fail, they can and go into bankruptcy or liquidated in a way that does not threaten the economy. i would also limit their influence in this town. one of the biggest problems we have is that wall street is the most powerful economic industry in the history of the world and they have used that economic power to buy political power. that is what protect the privileged status of wall street and as wall street's interest are able to be put over the interest of the rest of america. that is just wrong. host: brooklyn, on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am trying to figure out -- i am 81 years of age. i worked all of my life and paid taxes and did everything

necessary to keep us going. the republicans don't want the democrats to succeed. senator jacob javits as the only republican that i could go back to in years that was a dynamite man buried he did not care which way the sun came from or who you were, if you were out of line, he was out of line. these people tried to bring back the days of the 1940's and 1950's. they robbed us blind from the sources security from the bush administration. nobody mentions that. they just want to make sure there are no blacks to have a word.

it is time to wake up the world. that is what will happen in 2013. have a nice day. host: he was taking republicans to task. guest: he is referring to the election coming up. at 81 years old, if we had people have your age, half as involved as you are, we would be better off. he mentioned what has been going on since the 1940's and 1950's. wall street created the stock market crash of 1929 and the great depression that followed. over the years, we put in place a bowl variety of laws and regulations that heavily regulated the financial industry said they could not create another great depression. those rules were in place for seven decades and i worked very well. during that seven decades, not only did we not have a great

depression or another major stock margaret crash, we also have broad based prosperity in this country. not only to the country prosper but frankly, the financial- services industry of wall street brought along with the. that happened in to the 1990's. they took down the regulations that protected the american people from wall street. all those regulations or down in the year 2000. they're taken down on a bipartisan basis. it is not a one-party problem we have. you are correct, it is primarily one more than the other but it is a bipartisan activity. those laws and rules protecting the country for seven decades and seven years after being deregulated, wall street crash, the world's financial system and our economy and we became very,

very close to a second great depression. says a lot of -- that is what is at stake without financial reform. if we don't get this right, the country will be at risk of wall street ended the too big to fail banks and we will have a second great depression after the next crash if they are not regulated and the american people are not protected. host: independent caller, go ahead. caller: thank you for accepting my call. if i am 68 years old and i have been through all the administration's back to eisenhower. i look at this upcoming election to the point where mitt romney might be smart with his financial dealings but i don't think anyone can handle $13 trillion debt.

he does not really seem to have any contact or anything with the lower class people. class people. i do not consider myself lower class but i am native american. i can see that all of the overseas involvement -- he is not going to be able to handle any of that. he does not have the experience in it. i just hope that the republicans get together with somebody and resolve these issues that we have today. i do not think romney is going to do it. he never really worked a day in his life. better markets is nonpartisan so we do not weigh in on the political fight.

we do not lobby as it is defined in the law. a lot of people think advocating for the public is lobbying. tom mentioned the $13 trillion debt. jpmorgan chase is the largest bank in the united states. it has almost $2.40 trillion in assets. in fact, its assets are larger than the economies of brazil and the united kingdom. that is just one of the it to big to fail banks. it has employees around the globe. these and monstrosities cannot be managed. -- these monstrosities cannot be managed. no one has any idea what is going on in the different parts of that bank, including the best banker in the world.

he has that reputation. when you think about the size of these banks, you can understand why they threaten the financial system because if a bank like that were to fail, you can see why it would take down the system. you can also see why it cannot be managed. host: you can watch the hearing that dennis kelleher was just mentioning. starting at 10:00 this morning. let's hear from elisabeth anne long island on our republicans' line. caller: good morning. could you tell us why timothy geithner never reveal the actual amount that all of these companies really owed here and over in europe? guest: that is an excellent

question. i would not personalize it to the secretary of the treasury, timothy geithner. there has never been a full accounting of all the programs and money spent, lent, used, guaranteed, and deployed to save wall street from its health and save our financial system from wall street. it is no question that it is way into the trillions of dollars. the alphabet soup created by the federal reserve board is mind- boggling. never mind the additional programs done by the regulatory agencies. on the one hand, you are right. we do however know that it was trillions and trillions of dollars, and it has never been detailed. better markets tries to keep track of the cost of the crisis. on our home page, we have a

section called "cost of the crisis." we try to catalog the things that were spent and guaranteed, those trillions of dollars, but another thing is the social cost. over 10% unemployment. 3 million foreclosures. 7 million more in the pipeline. we have the highest food stamp and free school lunch use in the history of this country. it is in the middle class of the united states which is being devastated, paying the bill for the last financial crisis. just yesterday, the federal reserve board came out with a study of what happened to the american families and workers in this country since 2007. since 2007, the net worth of the median family in the united states has gone down 40%.

this financial crisis has devastated this country. one of the things we fight for is to try to prevent that from happening again. what we better hope happens at that sen it hearing it is these questions are put to the ceo's. how can it be that you are still making hundreds of billions of dollar bets and high-risk derivative securities that risk your bank? do not say $5 billion is not much to us. $5 billion here and $5 billion there, you have a financial crisis. that is what this country cannot afford. host: dennis kelleher, president and ceo of better markets. we were talking about timothy geithner a moment ago. we will be hearing from him today on c-span3.

in advance of the g20 summit next week. find out more about that on our website. roy tweets in -- guest: that is a very good question. it is mindboggling that not really a single prosecution of anybody in a serious position on wall street in the financial industry has come out of this crisis. you have about $8 trillion or so of housing loans gone. the losses that were caused clearly suggest broad based criminal activity. yet time and time again this administration and others say we are going to investigate it but we cannot find it. they have never put the

resources in place to do it. all they would have to do is turn on the tv and watch "60 minutes." they have done terrific stories from whistle-blowers, insiders places.tibank and other placer if there is not accountability on wall street for the conduct, and i believe criminal conduct related to the financial crisis, why would they not do it again? they get the upside, we get the bill, and nobody get prosecuted. it is not american. it shows the favoritism of wall street. if you rob the american people blind, cost the american treasury and the public trillions of dollars, inflict economic wreckage across the country, and there is zero

accountability? that is not right. that should stop. host: here is a story from "the washington post." guest: yet the department of justice, the most powerful justice agency and the world cannot find a single person to

prosecute. they do occasionally put out a laundry list of names, but they are minnows. they are not even the mid-level people on wall street. you do not have to look hard to find a egregious criminal misconduct. you do not have to watch "60 minutes." you can just read "the washington post." maybe the department of justice could look at this. i like to say even today with jamie dimon, do not listen to what he says. watch what his lawyers and lobbyists do. that will tell you what he really believes. the same thing goes for the politicians in this town and the department of justice who say they are getting tough on wall street and investigating. look at what they do. how many top prosecutors have they assigned to the task force?

until they assign 300 or 400 or 500 agents and some real serious prosecutors, do not believe a thing they are saying because it is not true. host: let's hear from dan in brooklyn. caller: good morning. i have spent most of my life trying to pull myself up by my bootstraps'. i eventually moved to atlanta and invested my money into housing. slightly before the crisis occurred, i tried to get a loan because it things started to turn down. things went bad. i went to jamie dimon's bank and tried to get loans and i was unable to. eventually my business failed and i lost everything. i wound up homeless. today we are going to watch

jamie dimon apologize for a mistake, basically causing people like myself who were told previously to invest and do the right things and leverage yourself up, and here is what happens. i leverage myself up and wound up losing everything because the banks would not lend me money. i was big enough to fail. they told me the market would take care of itself. i now live with my mother. thanks to those people. that is my comment. guest: dan, you hit all the key themes that are so important that we hope we hear at today's hearing. i fear that we will not. you were not too big to fail. you were too small so you were allowed to fail. many americans in this country

have failed and are in dire economic circumstances. but not these banks. the senior executives took in hundreds of billions of dollars in bonuses and pay seven years before the crisis. how much did they have to pay back for creating this crisis? since the crisis, they have paid themselves more than $80 billion in more bonuses. so, wall street plays by different rules and they get favorable treatment. everybody else in america gets treated differently. unto j.p. morgan chased to get a loan and they would not give it to you. what jamie dimon and the rest of these too big to fail banks want everybody to believe it is that they are banks. he had the audacity in his written testimony by going to a

little laundry list of the things that j.p. morgan chase does for the country. all of the mortgages and loans and credit cards. aren't we a great country because of them? the answer is no. they are not a bank. they are a trading vehicle. if they were a bank doing what a bank is supposed to do, he would not be testifying and we would not have had the crisis created by wall street in 2008. i hope things get better for you. a lot of people in america are in the same circumstances. hang in there. it is a great country. one of the biggest costs of the crisis in our view is the surveys now show that increasingly americans do not believe the american dream works for them any more. they do not see opportunity and

a chance to get ahead. there are plenty of people who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and they are being thrown a big cement block around their neck. that is why we need financial reform. that is why we need politicians of both parties to force the law, and that is why we need regulators to get strong reforms in place. the country cannot afford wall street doing this again. it needs to stop now. the politicians and their regulators need to hear from you and the rest of the country. all they hear from our jamie dimon, the mouthpieces, and the spanners all day long. call them and tell everybody you know to call them. call the regulators and tell them to put financial reform in place now to protect this

country. host: our guest is dennis kelleher, president and ceo of better markets. he spent time on capitol hill working for senators and also worked in the law profession. spending for years in active duty in the air force -- four active duty in the air force. this is joe tweeting in -- take us through deregulation. guest: if that were only the case, frankly, it is objectively true that the financial industry was massively regulated after the great depression and during the great depression, and they would deregulate it in the 1980's and 1990's. there was the law called the

commodities modernization act. in 1999, it essentially deregulated all derivatives which is why we have a 700 trillion dollars derivatives market where there is zero transparency and zero regulation. it was in 2000. in 1999, there was another law passed that deregulated the markets. one of the key parts was to take down glass-steagall. glass-steagall was one of the most important things passed after the great depression. it separated banks where take deposits and make loans to small businesses, to people like roy and others. that was the banking part of the financial industry. investment banks to trading and investments, often high risk. glass-steagall separated those

two so the risky activities of the banks could not threaten the actual bank loan part of the banks. that was taken down in the 1999. that is why one of the reasons why we have these huge too big to fail banks. they are both banks making loans, having credit cards, and trading in high-risk derivatives and other activities. all that happened because of deregulation. there is no argument that it happened. keep in mind that the money, power, and might of wall street is not partisan. it goes to where the power is. it just wants to buy the favors that it once. -- it wants. they did deregulate the industry

which led very quickly to the financial crisis. we had seven decades of production over our economy and financial system after the great depression. it took about seven years for wall street to undo all of that. ho: james is an independent caller from mississippi. welcome. caller: [unintelligible] -- if america would get back on that track, they would need regulation for the banks.

guest: the truth is, the world has evolved and the economy has evolved. there is no question. we need healthy, strong, sound, save banking in this country and for the world. it is where the capital comes from. people have jobs and businesses. roy talked about how he borrowed from a bank and built up the business. when times got tough, the rug was pulled out from under him. i do not think we can go back to that day. we do need much more regulation. if you have a three-year old or a five-year old and you throw them into a candy store, one thing to say is do whatever you want but do not overheat. that is not good for you.

then you can walk across the street, come back later, and see how that works out. or you can realize that five- year old will not be able to prevent himself from stuffing his or her pocket full of candy. the banking industry sits at the fulcrum of our economy. depending on which way the banking system goes so goes our economy. it is the only banking industry anywhere that its failure threatens our financial system and our entire economy. there is no other business or industry in the world where if it goes wrong, it can cause a second great depression. this is the only industry that can do that. their incentives are to make as much money as humanly possible as quick as possible because

they get it, get out, buy their houses, limousines, and yachts. that is the problem. they get the up side, we get the down side. that is why they need to be regulated. just how you would not leave a five-year old in a candy store. you cannot leave the financial industry to regulate itself because it cannot. there is a phrase in the industry. when you are talking about a trade where the person on the other side of the trade is going to end up holding the bag, the traders do not care because they are going to be gone by the time what they sold to that person blows up. they will be sitting on the beach in their big house with their big bank account, and everybody else gets the bill and gets to pay for it.

the people who have lost 40% of their net worth in three years -- it is very close to a second great depression. to prevent that, we have to regulate them. host: dennis kelleher, president and ceo of better markets. the dodd-frank law was signed almost two years ago by president obama. it includes provisions to liquidate failed financial firms and created the consumer financial protection bureau. also the volcker rule prevents commercial banks from making high-risk investments. guest: there were a few things probably more important done in recent history then passing financial reform. unfortunately, what i call the the wall street's fog machine has obscured many aspects of it and it is an intentional

misinformation campaign and serves wall street's interests. the last thing anybody would like to do is say, "from now on, you are only going to be able to make hundreds of billions omillf dollars in bonuses." people on wall street cannot possibly live with only hundreds of millions of dollars. they need the billions of dollars. if you think about it, it took the financial industry about two decades to rip down all of the protections of the american people. regulation is to protect the american people from wilding on wall street. what the law did was put back in place the protections that the industry had taken down. the activities are complex.

you need a law that is not only comprehensive because the system and the taxpayer can still be threatened. you need to have a comprehensive bill and layers of protection. there is no silver bullet, a single solution that will protect the economy or the taxpayers. what we learned after the great depression is layers of protection, glass-steagall and a whole bunch of other laws were put into place which protected the country for seven decades. the financial reform law both delta comprehensively with the industry and put in place layers of protection so if one does not work or if one has an unintended consequence or if one gets changed over time or if the evolution of banking changes so a part of it is no longer applicable, nonetheless the

american people will be protected because there are other layers bending the law needs to be enforced. -- there are other layers. the law needs to be enforced. date loaded up with loopholes and made it -- they loaded up with loopholes and made it ambiguous. even though wall street lost in congress because the bill was passed, it gets kicked to the regulatory agencies. now they are fighting tooth and nail to enforce the law. it is unfortunate because if we do not have comprehensive financial reform or layers of protection, i fear that the next financial crisis is going to make the last time into crisis look like a walk in the park. host: let's get a few more questions. keith is up next from florida.

go ahead. you are on the air. caller: hello? host: we will move on to atlanta, georgia. can you hear us? good morning. we will try another person. james, a republican from new jersey. are you with us? we are thrilled that you can hear us. caller: third time is the charm. from the outset, he said he was not a lobbyist. working for the public interest. the question is where are you receiving your funding? guest: good question and a fair question. we do not lobby. lobbying is a particularly define the term in the law. i do not say that because those who do lobby are bad.

our funding comes primarily from a hedge fund manager out of atlanta who got involved in the legislative process in 2008 in connection with the oil price run-up. oil prices went up to about $148 per barrel and gas prices were going up over $4 per gallon. he got involved because he saw what wall street was doing in the commodity markets. he got involved and testified in congress and did some research. he then became involved in financial reform on an ad hoc basis and hired a couple of guys out of his own pocket to advocate for the public in financial reform. during most of this i did not know him. he realized he had three kids and a job in atlanta, so he looked around to contribute financing to an organization

that promotes the public interest in the financial markets. to his surprise, he did not find one because there was not one in existence at the time. so he founded better markets, a nonprofit organization, and then he went out to try to recruit somebody to run it. he approached me and i guess the rest is history. i started this right after i left in october 2010. we are located in washington, d.c., and we fight for transparency, accountability, and oversight. we are often the only entity fighting against wall street trying to roll back these reforms. better markets cannot do this alone. we need allies and supporters. there are other organizations, a

whole variety of other organizations that are also engaged in the debate trying to protect the public. that is how better markets is funded currently. we expect more broadbased bonding overtime once we become better known. -- broadbased funding overtime once we become better known. caller: i love the overview on wall street. it has really been enlightening. my question is on the news this morning its said that wall street has contributed $37 million to romney and $40 million to obama. obama must be doing something right. it makes me leery to vote for republican when everything you

stated, they give that much money to him at. they must be trying to do something. guest: it is true that one of the biggest problems we have in this country is the campaign finance system that has frankly become disconnected with reality and caused a terrible distortion of our political process. there is a new organization called united republic that is trying to fight and it changed that. i would encourage you and others to go online. they are trying to fix the campaign finance system. your main point is dead on. wall street and others is centrally by power and art in different to parties. -- and are in different to parties. i also want to mention the

institute for america's future did a really interesting report showing exactly how influence is done in washington. it is how to big to fail army of lobbyists which detail the sorry state of affairs of how wall street purchases political power in this town. i think you have to very carefully listen to the politicians. i would encourage you and others to dohat been big money is flowing disproportionately to one party -- others to do that. money is flowing disproportionately to one party. host: let me mention this. guest: i think that speaks volumes. when jamie dimon talks today, i do not listen to what he is saying. watch what his lobbyists and

lawyers are doing. look at where they are putting their money. one thing wall street knows how to do is invest money and then they invest in politicians and they look for a return -- is invest money. they invest in politicians and they look for a return. if you do that, he will figure out who the right person is to support in the upcoming election. thank you for having me. host: coming up next, we'll hear from grover norquist from americans for tax reform. we will talk about the republican party and whether it has left moderate behind in its new policies. later on, we are continuing our week-long series with a look at the u.s. treasury. mary miller will join us. first, this news update from c- span radio.

>> former presidential candidate rick santorum is standing by his endorsement of mitt romney, telling cnn while he supports the nominee, he will still try to hold romney's feet close to the fire. the center recently announced he was forming a nonprofit group -- the commerce the hour reports on may retail sales. those reports come amid continuing worries about the health of the u.s. economy. military leaders are breaking ground today.

the facility will be a satellite center to an even larger facility that opened in bethesda, mdaryland. some 1000 service members each year suffer from head injuries in iraq and afghanistan from improvised bombs. finally, it has been a deadly day in iraq when coordinated car bombs struck several cities killing at least 63 and wounding dozens more. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the story behind the star spangled banner, the invasion and burning of washington, d.c. this weekend on "american history tv." historians, authors, and your calls on this little known war.

more from our series on key political figures who ran for president but lost. sunday at 7:30 p.m. american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: grover norquist is president of americans for tax reform. good morning. the former governor of florida at jeb bush has made some comments recently that calls into question what he sees as the party's shift to the right. there has been some back-and- forth about this. he said that his father and ronald reagan would have a hard time sitting in during this tea party era. guest: jeb has not run for office in 10 years and he lives in florida. i do not think he has followed

what has happened in washington over the last several years. here you have obama coming in as president and spending a trillion dollars in spending all of the unilaterally without input or compromise. the democrats are trying to argue that the republicans are not raising taxes to pay for obama's spending is being partisan. no, the republicans do not intend to raise taxes and spending americans do not want their taxes raised -- intended to raise taxes. americans do not want their taxes raised. for some reason, it was kept secret instead of kept open as the president said the process would be. we now know that special interests were promised tens of

billions of dollars in return for goodies. that would not have happened if c-span was covering it. the modern democratic party has run off the rails. for jeb bush to stand up and say the republicans will not raise taxes kind of comes in the middle of an argument. host: let's listen to the former governor and his own words speaking a couple of weeks ago about the tax code and the grover norquist tax pledge. >> you disagree with the recommendations of simpson- bowles. through tax reform, we should do what you say which is try to make the tax code simpler. we should also use some of the funds generated to help reduce the deficit. you disagree with that. you agree with the grover norquist pledge.

do you agree with the grover norquist pledge? >> i ran for office three times and the pledge was presented to me three times. i never signed the pledge. year i wass every time governor. i never signed any pledge. host: grover norquist. guest: you should not come to washington unprepared and think they are going to ask you questions about budgeting which i think jeb bush thought they were going to ask him about. he embarrassed himself by misspeaking. he was quoting harry reid's analysis. the taxpayer protection pledge was created about 25 years ago

in order to make it possible for a candidate to say to the american people i am not going to raise your taxes and do it in a way that is believable. for thousands of years, candidates have been running for office asking for power and promising not to raise taxes. they tend to break their word once they get elected. by having it in writing, the pledge is a simple commitment. the pledge is to the american people, the people of your state. rick scott, the successful governor of florida, signed the pledge to the people of florida. not to me or the americans for tax reform. the pledge is a simple commitment to the people of the united states or florida that when i run into a problem, i am going to reform and not raise

taxes to pay for previous problems. this is what scott walker did in wisconsin. they had a $3 billion deficit. the reform public-sector union laws -- he reformed public- sector union lost. as a result, they balance the budget without a tax increase and he kept his pledge. the reform government. the pledge is i am not going to raise your taxes. the pledge is for the american people. secondly, the pledge makes it clear that you can give deductions and credits in order to simplify the tax code. reducing tax rates like in 1986.

they were created in order to make that possible. we do not want tax reform that ever again, to be a trojan horse for higher taxes. that is what the pledge is. host: he responded to a series of tweets. here is one recently from his own account. do you think moderate republicans have been left behind? guest: no. that is the narrative that obama is trying to drive which is why when jeb bush comes in from out of town and get pulled into the middle of this and start quoting democratic senators, it puts him in an awkward position. ronald reagan stood for less government, lower taxes, and less spending. he fought for that.

the idea that because he did not win every fight that somehow he was not committed to his principles is suggesting that george washington did not want to win the revolutionary war because he lost a battle. bought reagan had a democratic house, a republican senate which did not agree with him. today, the moderate republican party is the party that reagan created. reagan is the voice and the leadership of less taxes, less regulation, more freedom, strong national defense, and less overspending. the idea that reagan would be out of sync of the party molded in his image is to dismiss the last years of american history. host: here is a tweet that was put out by jeb bush yesterday.

calls.et some we will keep talking about this. minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. i am 29 years old with four children. i cannot pay my bills. i think i have a revenue problem. what do you think? thank you. guest: you make the point that washington is spending too much money. obama came into office and he threw almost a trillion dollars at additional stimulus spending. it is called keynesian economics. if you take a dollar from someone who earned it and run it through the secret black box of government and give it to a friend of yours, it is now $2 in the economy.

they call the multiplier effect. you might call it overspending or fraud or stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to your friends. they really believe -- remember when all the democrats said they were going to have a recovery summer? they believe that we were all going to get rich as a result. things got worse. not better. other countries that of voted that overspending did better than we did. -- that avoided that overspending did better than we did. when you throw money at things like that, it makes things worse. not better tha. people are leaving the workplace. they are leaving the work force. they are not looking for work. during the reagan recovery, you

had the tremendous economic growth. the reagan economy grew 17%. the obama economy, 7%. we are spending too much money, not taxing too little. that is why the taxpayer protection pledge of not raising taxes is so central and has been adopted by most republicans at the national and state level. host: let's hear from tom on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am wondering how a private individual like yourself wields so much power in the political system where we vote for president and congressmen and etc.

some of your economic policies i think are quite simplistic and not looking at the differences between wealth and money. money is just a transactional thing, and you are talking about limiting spending. why are you so against it? guest: thank you for asking that question. that is what harry reid has been saying, that somehow i have power through the pledge. again, the pledge is a written commitment by elected officials to the voters of their state and to the country that they will not raise taxes. if they have a problem, they will reform government. raising taxes is off the table. raising taxes is what politicians do instead of governing. when obama comes in and says we

have a problem, eliminating programs that do not work -- he just took a trillion dollars and threw it on the fire and said i have done something and then just raised taxes to raise taxes to pay for it. governing is better than raising taxes. bad politicians raise taxes instead of making the tough decisions like rick scott in florida. scott walker, the very successful governor in wisconsin. the reformer in pennsylvania. all of these governors are not raising taxes. they are reforming government. that is important. they made that commitment to their voters. not as harry reid misstated or somebody else. the pledge is to the american people.

candidates are elected officials make that pledge because they do not plan to raise taxes. the reason they put it in writing is so you and everybody in the country knows i mean it when i make this commitment. that is the value of the pledge. the power lies with the american people who want reform, limited government and not higher taxes. host: from "the wall street journal" this morning -- those are figures from the treasury department. good news? guest: we are in a slow recovery. the bad news is the deficit, the debt that we are adding, is at an historic high.

budget,g to obama's own we never get spending down from where it is today. he just wants to raise taxes up to a new higher level of spending. it is better than less revenue coming in, but it is not as good you actually reform government. host: grover norquist is our guest, president of americans for tax reform. his latest book is "debacle." jamie, a democratic caller from michigan, good morning. caller: grover norquist, i saw you on a show with -- for

millionaires. you stated at that time that you believed only the wealthy should own all the land, and the other people -- guest: i have never said any such thing nor do i believe it. caller: i urge anyone to look it up on youtube. that was your statement. my question is what gives you the right to make tax policy for the united states of america? across the backs of the republicans to keep them that way by telling them you have enough e-mails and

correspondence if they go against you. guest: ok. with apologies, i do remember the conversation when i met with the left wing millionaires who wanted to raise people's taxes. i argued with them it is not a good idea. i think everyone should own property and be free to own property. i think people who earned a lot of money and work on saturdays, that is just great. of the government ought not to be telling people -- the government ought not to be telling people what soda pop they can drink or how much they can work. i do not want the government out punishing people for working on saturdays and investing their life's savings in their own small businesses or their

efforts to take care of their families. what the left guys when they say is "oh, they tax rich people" -- when the politicians say i am going to tax rich people, that means they are going to tax rich people first and then you. the alternative minimum tax -- we just got the congressional testimony. if it is not easy to get. we got a copy ofbig. -- copy of it. on january 1, if obama is reelected, january 1 of next year, 51 million families. at the end of the decade, 55 million families. what advocates of higher taxes

like to do -- wait a while. 4 million. wait a while. 55 million families hit with a tax that was sold as a tax on the rich. income taxes were sold to us in the early 1900's. now half of the country pay the personal income tax or more. so, this is trickle-down taxation. they come for everybody sooner or later. host: a couple of callers mentioned this story from a couple of weeks ago.

guest: the story was not accurate in total. the headline was a little better. i actually sent over to the writer that as many or more people -- we now yesterday got more pledge takers, candidates, and incumbents then all of 2010. we are five or six months away from the election. we are ahead of where we were in previous years. there was another article in "the wall street journal" a year-ago. only three presidential candidates have signed it. what is the matter with you? you have them as running. i assume they are all running.

we have not talked to all of them yet. nine out of 10 of the republicans running for president have made the commitment on the pledge in writing, the strong showing in history in terms of getting those commitments. the one guy jon huntsman flamed out earlier largely because he was not in sync with everyone else with spending restraint. he was open to raising taxes. the good news for people who want their taxes low, not only have more people taken the pledge but last night we had a series of -- two candidates who took the pledge defeated the more prominent candidate who had not made that commitment. similar things are happening in house races across the country. host: let's hear from a republican caller in iowa.

good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering about what you would do in this case. in the past, republicans have arranged for that. they pay for wars when they get into them. their wars are paid in advance. what should have bush done to arrange money for the iraq war? guest: two things. you have to decide whether or not you want a war. it is probably a good idea to get a declaration of war if you are going to send thousands of americans overseas to die. you skipped that part of getting a declaration of war. two, the expensive part of both iraq and afghanistan was not driving saddam hussein out of power or the taliban out of power.

occupying it was the expense. also if you are going to be spending money on a new project, you ought to be spending less on other projects. the commitment that president obama made when he ran for office was he would not spend a dollar on any new program without cutting spending on previously existing programs. it did not last three weeks before he spent $800 million on stimulus spending not offset by any savings in other areas. i think the argument here when harry truman involved us in the war in kkorea, he ordered across the board cuts in other areas of spending and the government. if you are going to have a project or a war or another government program, spend less somewhere else.

sks onthis viewer aks twitter -- guest: that is an interesting question. can you have the gasoline tax only go to the road? the guys who want big pensions look at that lovely money committed to roads and say let's get some of that. i think 18% of that goes to urban transit. for people who drive on the roads, you are paying for someone else. as much as that sounds like a good idea, it is tough to police. not impossible. people discovered social security was being spent. i see it usually as a promise,

putting it in a locked box and would be protected. people find out it was looted. 1 governor took all the money and spent it and had no money for roads. he spent the money on other things and then tried to raise taxes, promising this time we will spend it on roads. in theory, but i am not sure -- if some states have done it well, i would be interesting and looking at it. host: let's hear from an independent caller from new york. caller: how are you doing? i am a little concerned. guest: less spending, more freedom. caller: what i am concerned about is the disingenuous statements that you make. you talk about lower taxes,

smaller government, less spending. the reality was -- he raised he raised the debt limit. guest: in politics, you look at what somebody fight for and where you would have been without it. he took the top marginal tax rate in the country, 70% when he came in, it was 28% when he left. he created millions of new jobs. compared to obama's recovery, over six more million more jobs in the same time were created in a significantly smaller population of 30 years ago than today. by all measures, whether

setbacks? absolutely. the republican party has taken a couple decades to catch up with reagan. now you have john boehner who we committed the republican party to not raising taxes. we are not going to be raising taxes. will restrain spending -- we w ill restrain spending. and the ryan budget is written down. right down and bring it to the table. paul ryan, the head of the budget committee, he has put together a program.

he is a reagan republican, driven by individualism and limited spending. reagan built the modern republican party. did he win every fight? absolutely not. when he left, about half the republican party were in republicans. now, almost half. host: let's go to birmingham, alabama. caller: i am a democrat, i am 51. i have had a lot of republican presidents in my lifetime. this president has a problem with people working with him.

people would rather see the country godown than to see the country -- i have never seen treason like this. people would rather see people lose jobs. guest: you say that -- caller: i mean the people that will not vote on anything, like the jobs bill. how could you say that is republican or democrat? that is for everybody. they would not want to see this president succeed. host: let's get a response, william. guest: the republicans in the house have passed about 20 different pieces of legislation to create jobs. in the senate, harry reid has not allow those to come up for vote. one or two have because they have gotten enough attention. obama did sign at least one of

them. it would be a good idea if the senate would take up all the jobs bills that have been passed in the house. the president a year ago had a jobs bill that was really a spending bill, $400 billion in spending on different things. the republicans said, let's vote on it, and harry reid did not allow a vote in the senate because the massive spending increase that was there would not have created jobs. the democrats did not want to vote for it and look like big spenders or vote against it and look like they were fighting against the president. asked harry reid why he does not want to vote on the real jobs bill that the republicans have put forth for the spending bill that obama suggests but we don't get to vote on. the stimulus package made things

worse and not better. we should also vote on real spending -- jobs-creating bills that don't waste money and don't get in the way of creating jobs. the president is trying to kill the pipeline that would create a number of jobs in the country. that's a jobs bill. harry reid and the democrats and the claire mccaskills of the world will soon go no. host: grover norquist. let's look in this story in "politico" from last week --

he goes on to doug about republicans who are meeting to discuss things. -- to talk about. do you support letting the scheduled sequestration cuts go through, including the defense cuts? guest: absolutely, the sequestration should take effect. congress, instead of this particular collection, $1 trillion over a decade, $100 billion in reductions from the increases. if the scheduled increases are incut back, you could shape that differently.

as long as you don't increase the amount of money. i always wonder about people who have secret meetings. how about the republicans in the house who are putting up for vote extending all the bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the amt tax, the r&d tax credit. tax increases will be hitting on january 1. the republicans have said that they will pass in the house a one-year extension so that we will have a republican house and senate in january and president romney, they will reform the tax code as the rhine plan does. and they will pass something close to the bryan bill, which saves $6 trillion. there's no fiscal cliff unless obama gets reelected.

-- the republicans will f reformed the tax code, as the ryan plan does. the european average is 25% for the tax rate. competitive internationally for us. expensing for new business investments. the republican plan is out there. why any republican senator would undermine romney and the efforts of republican senators is odd. i'm not sure they are participating in trying to undermine romney and republican senators. the democrats want to have tax increases instead of spending restraints. democrats want to spend more money. republicans want to have less

spending and not raise taxes. host: let's hear from a caller ralph, angton, d.c., val republican. caller: thanks for keeping my taxes low. i used to work as an engineer and am an investor now. i'm making seven figures and pay virtually nothing in taxes. i don't pay security -- the security, medicare, medicaid. i get capital gains, and am only paying 50%. blue-collar people voting for this tax thing is great. i think they are stupid. i am getting rich and the middle class are getting screwed and the lower class are getting screwed. keep up so i will be filthy rich

and they will be living in the slums by the time we get through. guest: you are calling on the republican line and taking up other people's time. that is dishonest. if you want to make the case for left-wing politics, we have been discussing that. we have had some nice left-wing guys to call and ask some grown- up questions. you are claiming to be arguing from a reagan republican perspective and made up a story about who you are. you could make a lot of money selling your secret. the top 1% of income earners in this country pay 40% of the federal income tax. the top 50% pay 99%. we have a steeply progressive tax code, meaning we penalize people who work, save, and

invest. if you get a capital gains, they tax it. if you invest in a company, they tax it. if you die, they take half of everything that you've accumulated in your life that you might have wanted to give to your family. peoplearacaricature of the illy.ay taxes is still i solyndra needs more cash. it irritates real people who work on saturday or would like to have a second job, but obama's economy is so bad. we have to change this policy

and that has failed america. host: let's get christine in the conversation, and independent caller in hampton, virginia. caller: mr. norquist, i am surprised to see your professional demeanor today. i have seen you on many talk shows where you are just gloating about the fact that anybody who signs one of your tax pledges and then goes against it will get the wrath of your political influence should they try to run again. guest: people often say that, but it's not true. the american people are the ones who have as their elected officials not to raise taxes. we need to make it easy for people to know whow an elected official focused. caller: you are suggesting money does not play a part in political campaigns? guest: some are asking

politicians not to sign the pledge and they're spending a lot of money on that. i want you to be able to raise taxes so you can spend money -- in washington, all the buildings are built by spending interest. the taxpayer interest has a couple of floors in the building. the buildings you see out the window are billed by lobbyists who want more spending. they do get very disappointed, but our job is to make sure voters know where people are. you live in virginia. your previous governor, warner, ran for office and said he would never raise taxes. when we asked if he would put it in writing, he said he was insulted that anyone would suggest i would raise taxes. as soon as he got in office, he slammed virginia with a massive

tax increase. back-to-back, politicians said they would not raise taxes but would not put it in writing. the reason the pledge is important, once you put into writing that you will not raise taxes, voters have a copy online. they can make sure you are responsible for what you do as opposed to warner saying he would not do it and then raising taxes. host: grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. here is his latest book on obama. thanks for joining us this morning. guest: good to be here. host: coming up, we continue our series this week looking at financial regulatory agencies. undersecretary recor mary miller. >> some of the headlines.

labor department out with its producer price index, saying it fell 1% in may after dropping 0.2 since of a% in april. gas prices dropped 9%. food costs also fell. that index measures price changes before the they reach the consumer. meanwhile, the commerce department reports that in may, retail sales fell 0.2%, pulled down by a sharp drop in gas prices. even after excluding the volatile gas sales, consumers increased their spending just a little, suggesting slow job growth and small wage increases could be leading consumers to pull back on spending. however, consumers spent more in may on big purchases, including cars, furniture,. and, a new global survey finds that for the first time, people are more likely to see china as the world's leading economic power rather than the u.s.

the pew research center shows 41% of those interviewed in 21 countries rank china and the number one economy while 40% put the u.s. in first place. the trend was especially strong in europe. president obama having talked to the white house today with the israeli president shimon peres. later tonight at a white house dinner will present him with the medal of freedom. president obama and he will be accompanied at the dinner by michelle obama, vice president joe biden, secretary clinton, and former president bill clinton. finally, companies and organizations from america and europe dominated the bids for new internet addresses as a key oversight agency prepares for the largest expansion yet in the online addressing system. the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers received 1930 proposals for 1409

different internet suffixes. that was by the may 30 deadline. 6 nearly half the proposals were from north america and most of the rest came from europe. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend, follow david maraniss on his journey, walking in the footsteps of barack obama. live a 7:30, he takes your calls and questions. also, this weekend, conservative commentator jonah goldberg blames liberals for a war of ideas. >> american politics have been distorted for the last century and by the idea that the farther you move from the left, the closer you get the bad things.

they use words like racist, homophobic, sexist, fascist. >> sunday night deadline o'clock on "book tv" -- sunday night at 9:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have been looking at federal financial agencies every day. sunday restarted looking at the work of the securities and exchange commission. yesterday,. the,. tomorrow we will it get the work of the federal deposit insurance corp., the fdic. then we will finish our discussion on friday with the consumer financial protection bureau. the work of the treasury department, today. mary miller is joining us, is the undersecretary for domestic finance. would you describe what you do and your role as far as federal

regulation of financial markets and agencies and things like that? guest: the treasury is a broad place. we do a lot of things. refinance the government through our debt management operation, we print currency, collect revenues. we also have a strong policy role in looking at things like financial market regulation and the treasury is interested in protecting the financial security of our system. with the passage of the dodd- frank act last year, there's a great deal of work on the table. the office of domestic finance, my office, is interested in looking at the impact of financial regulation not just on markets and also on financial institutions, protecting the financial stability of the united states and the broader global financial system. at the same time we are interested in the fiscal operations of the u.s. so there's quite a bit to talk about in terms of financial regulation and the role my office has in trying to develop policy ideas and guidance for

regulators and four legislators in the executive branch. host: house involved are you in politics these days? guest: the three things that are the most important, financial regulatory reform, all the things that are encompassed in the dodd-frank act, housing finance reform, which is really important to bring stability and growth to our, our, and you're interested in the fiscal operations of the u.s.. s. host: where are we as far as full implementation of dodd- frank? guest: this is a pivotal year. a lot of the regulations have been proposed. not all of them have been finalized, but i see things coming together in a way this year that i think by the end of the year there will be much more clarity. a lot is in construction now, but i see important building blocks getting done and things moving. towards moving host: is the vocal part of that?

guest: it is. -- is the volcker rule part of that? guest: it is. we have some coordinating role assignments including that rule. to come back to the rule, our job is to coordinate the rulemaking. the treasury is not a regulator. we don't write the rules. but in this case we have the job of bringing the regulators to the table, taking a look at the comments -- 18,000 of them on the proposed rule -- and bringing it all together and getting it to the finish line. our role is to coordinate, to make sure we are getting good guidance from all the regulators, to help the rule riders crafting a tax to get

that done. host: does that influence the process? guest: of course. one of the best things about our regulatory process is there's a lot of engagement. we have all kinds of parties weighing in on these rules, because they are important to the future of the financial system. . comments periods are very useful for bringing perspective. that is something the treasury can do. we are trying to be the honest broker of information, bring the perspective to the table so we can help the regulatory bodies that have to do this. there are five involved in crafting the rule. so they have information that is put together in a sensible way to help get this done. host: how many of those comments were critical? guest:f 18,000 letters, many of them were form letters. probably between 300 letters and 400 letters that were quite substantive. some of them were longer than

the proposed rule, running hundreds of pages. this is a tough piece of work and there's a lot of work involved. i want your viewers to understand that it was a very careful amount of attention paid to these comments. so everything gets wade and codified. we bring it together and think about not just the substance of the comments, but sometimes if the intensity. how many places are we hearing this and how many parties are weighing in and what are the pros and cons on all sides? host: our guest will be with us until 10:00. mary miller, the undersecretary. if you want to ask questions, here are the numbers to call this morning -- if you want to send a tweet, you

may. when did you see a finished date? guest: are you speaking about the volcker rule? i think we will get that done this year. i don't have a precise date. host: what happens when it's done? guest: after its written, it will come out as a final rule. then there's a period of time for financial firms to comply. the federal reserve provided a little guidance about that earlier. it largely reinforced what the law said, that basically july 2014 is the data are all firms need to be in compliance. so we don't know precisely the day that the final rule comes out, but there is some time for the firms to move to full compliance. host: our guest is the undersecretary for domestic finance. before that she served as assistant secretary for the treasury for financial markets.

she spent 26 years working at t. rowe price. she has a bachelor's from cornell university as well as other degrees. william fitts on our independent line from california. cal-- william is on. on. caller: yes, i'm a first-time caller. my question is about whether or not the glass-steagall act should be brought back. i have a concern that even with the dodd-frank legislation, that the people who have deposits in banks are still at risk because of the merging of the bank's investment strategy with people's deposits. that should be kept. i would like to hear her opinion about that. thank you. -- i think that should be kept

separate. guest: thanks for the question. our financial institutions today are large and complex, but i am not sure returning to the glass- steagall days is the answer. i think that some of the firms that failed in the financial crisis were quite distinct and i don't think that it lends itself to saying that would've been the answer to preventing that. the things we need to do and financial regulatory reform are to make sure that our financial institutions of whatever size are protected in ways that keep those failures from spreading to the broader financial system. putting more capital in financial institutions, we see the amount of leverage they can -- reducing the amount of leverage they can have, providing more liquidity to financial institutions, these are the things we think will make the system stronger.

we cannot go backwards. we have to go for words. the financial system is always evolving. there's plenty of innovation. we think innovation is good, but we have to make sure that our regulatory structure is keeping up with this. one of the key components is making sure the taxpayers are not at risk for losses. the dodd-frank legislation is very clear about that. also, taking a number of steps within the legislation and outside that legislation to make sure finance law institutions are much stronger and can withstand the inevitable mistakes that managers will make. we need to make sure they don't spread to the broader system. we might think about some of the work that's going on through the banking regulation and some worked in housing finance. dodd-frank does a great deal. it's a very broad piece of legislation with a lot of very important safeguards. but i think we need to look beyond that to other things going on in the system.

host: barry is on our democratic allies in florida. caller: hi, ms. miller. as someone who watched all the house and senate hearings during the really bad days, but there are common sense rules to change things, frankly, i don't see that happening. mr. gary gensler spoke the other day about the differences that they have between his regulatory agency and the sec. it seems there's foot dragging. the major financial and it interests want to stall. the banks are not investing in our economy any more. where's the money going? guest: let me try to pick up on a couple threads of what you said. i think there's a great deal

going on in washington in terms of changing the system. i appreciate the fact that from the outside it looks like it's not happening quickly enough. i would say we are interested in getting these things right, making sure there are tougher rules and they are enforceable and workable, that we preserve the good things about our financial system but we get rid of the things that create. unnecessary risk so i think the important message i would send is we are very vigilant about the rule-writing process and changes that are taking place. we think that banks need to be held accountable. we understand that investors -- the public has had a very big shock and are very concerned. they need to have confidence in our financial markets and our institutions. we will take the time to get this right. we do listen to a lot of

different opinions and perspectives on this, but i don't want to suggest we are backing away from tough implementation of these rules. host: this on twitter -- guest: i don't think size is really the right question. we have seen failures across the spectrum of sizes of financial institutions. the right question is whether the failure will inflict damage more broadly on the economy, on the financial markets? one of the things we are working on is a resolution scheme -- a resolution authority to wind down the very large financial institutions without creating havoc in the financial markets to counterparties and to the broader system. that is title 2 of dodd-frank and the ftse has put out the rules for doing this.

is this easy? no. what we lacked in the financial crisis was a toolbox for doing this in a crisis. so i think we are better equipped today to think about how to do this, how to protect the financial markets, how to make the institution itself before the loss and not the taxpayer. host: is there a winding down going on? guest: not of that scale. our system is much stronger today than it was in 2008. but we have the means to do it if we have to. host: jacksonville, florida, harley is on our independent line. good morning. caller: this morning. i was curious what your background was leading up to your appointment. second, which of the two presidents, clinton or bush, made the biggest changes in the financial markets that created the 2007 collapse? guest: my background is as an

investor. i spent many years managing portfolios for large and small investors either through retail mutual funds or through institutional portfolios. i came to this job with a strong view that we need to make the system safer for investors and we need to restore confidence in our financial markets, our financial institutions. i think it is a very important time to be in washington to work on those matters. i am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to do that. the second part of the question was -- host: asking about president clinton and bush. guest: yes, it is important to appreciate that markets across presidential terms, regulations across presidential terms. i'm not sure i could assign either praise or blame to any particular administration. the most recent history, i know

that things done in 2008 to make the system stronger, the passage of the troubled assets relief program crossed administrations. one administration adopted it and another had to implement it. it is hard to draw lines. host: you put out a statement that says we stand at $60 billion still out as far as the money invested in tarp. guest: any losses that might be realized as a result of tarp will largely be related to the housing programs that occurred under tarp that were not designed. designed recoup on the bank support programs, a lot of the other features, we have had remarkable recovery results. so i don't think in 2008 anyone imagined that we would be able to recover as much as we have through the tarp asset sales and

payback from institutions that were assisted. i think the outcome is quite good. any spending will be related to housing assistance. host: what did we get out of the investment? guest: it put a very important safety net under the financial system. it provided some time for institutions to get back on their. feet and to repay their. host: our banks' lending more because of it now? guest: we are seeing an improvement in lending. it is more pronounced among large institutions than among small institutions. that is an area where we have to focus. host: troy, montana, brian is on the republican line, good morning. caller: hi. i was calling because the bills that you guys put out, what about making them a couple pages instead of 1000 pages? when you do that, then the rules

and regulations would be pretty clear instead of open to interpretation to all these lawyers that seemed to cause a lot of the problems because they look for ways to sneak around your bills and cause some of these problems for the banks when the going to the gray areas. guest: i would certainly subscribe to of your pages. that's a very good idea. i think the reality is we have a pretty complex financial system. that leads to long legislation come along rules that are put out. the intent is to provide specific clarity. i think you are pointing out that often the length and complexity of the rules and legislation itself is very difficult. i agree with that. but the reality is these are tough, complicated systems that

have evolved over time, so there needs to be a lot of specificity to get to the practical outcomes we are trying to achieve. host: springfield, missouri, democratic line. caller: hi. i hope you get an opportunity to retain your appointment for another 8 years. there seems to be a disconnect between the understanding of the general public between what actually happened when the regulation under the obama administration came into effect with the dodd-frank act. it just seems to me that so many people are confused at the

department of the treasury trying with its regulations to prevent a repeat of past transgressions that has thrown our economy into turmoil. we continually hear from republicans and independents and democrats alike that small business people are being hurt by these regulations when in actuality it seems to me we are just trying to hold the large financial institutions accountable for any mistakes that they may make in the future. guest: thank you for articulating that so well. i do think there are many disconnects or points of confusion between the public and what is really going on in terms of financial regulatory reform. it is the reason why i take opportunities like this to try to talk with people and provide more clarity about what we are doing.

i think that you cannot experience the sort of financial crisis and economic downturn that we went through in 2008 and 2009 without having a pretty hefty response. i think that the work we are doing today is very significant in terms of making the system stronger, providing a lot of support for small institutions as well as large institutions to protect themselves with important safeguards so they can deliver the type of economic growth that we need to have in this country. i think we have to have those safeguards in place so people trust institutions. we have important safeguards so the sort of lending and growth that we are anxious to see will take place. host: dublin, california, mick on our independent line, go ahead. caller: i have been watching c- span off and on quite a bit, especially the last 10 years. these days it is getting harder

for me to watch at all because of all the baloney that is being put forth. this young lady is probably the most honest person on earth. but she is from the investment industry gets causing all the problems, but nobody wants to admit it. look what happened to the savings and loans 20 or 30 years ago it. they deregulated and went bankrupt. they ought to deregulate the banks so they can stop being involved with the stock market. the stock market controls itself so they can buy and sell stocks so they can learn multibillion

dollar bonuses. they're not for the public. there for the investors. host: thank you. it guest: thanks for calling me a young lady. unfortunately, i am old enough to have worked through the savings and loan crisis and i do remember that quite well. as a government, we have a responsibility to pay attention to the financial sector and to write a corporate regulations to protect ourselves. markets evolve, innovation occurs, some of it good and some of it bad. if we need to arm ourselves with regulations that will provide the appropriate oversight of markets, to provide protections for investors and small businesses. i don't think investors were necessarily the cause. i think there were broad range of players in the financial markets that were responding to the wrong incentives. i think there are many at blame. i think everyone has to take a seat at the table to try to make things better. host: when you look at putting

in new regulation, especially on wall street, what philosophy do you need to make sure it does not go too far and affect the industry itself? those are likely some comments you received. guest: sure. you begin with the concept that the taxpayers should not be on the look for losses. you want to make the institutions that benefit from a federal safety net, for example of large bank and has access to deposit insurance, make sure that institution is not taking undue risk, that the taxpayers would end up paying for. that is a key principal at the beginning. when we look at the volcker rule, we say we need to make sure we have appropriate safeguards, but we also have to provide liquidity in the market and make sure financial institutions are providing the correct intermediary role in

terms of translating credit into finance and loans and allowing their company to grow. so that is the key balance that you are trying to strike with regulations. you want to have appropriate safeguards, protect the taxpayers, would also provide credits and mediat and mediatio. host: jim is on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the lady why the treasury keeps printing more money and why don't they just let people fail? if it was my business and i cannot run it right, i would fail it. i don't understand why not the bill anybody out. i don't get it.

y'all have printed so much money now that everything is high and our houses are cheap and all are killing us -- you all are killing us. guest: i do hear about the damage that occurred through the financial crisis. the test that we have to pass is not whether institutions can fail -- of course they can fail and there are many examples of mistakes that have been made and companies that have failed -- the test is whether we can protect the broader economy and financial markets from being damaged by those failures. we need to put in place safeguards that protect taxpayers, protect the economy from failure but not protect institutions from failure. host: july 2010 the dodd-frank

act was signed into law -- matt says -- guest: i think it is a pretty good piece of legislation. when you walk through the different parts of it in terms of some of the things you have already highlighted, providing a plan to wind down a large institution in an orderly manner, putting in restrictions from on high risk trading, looking at title 8, i think providing a lot more daylight, a lot more transparency into the derivatives market is a good thing. i think, if you talk to investors, they like the idea that they will have more transparency about pricing, about the size and scale of

trading, and that these things will be traded. many over-the-counter derivatives will be trading and clearing houses, which provide financial security to investors. this is a lot of complexity, a lot for the general public to absorption. but i would say when you get into the details of this, i think there are some very important safeguards in dodd- frank. host: does your portfolio deal with treasury debts as well as the amount that tell? how much is currently held by other countries or by people in the u.s.? guest: a little over $10 trillion of treasuries out in the public market. there's a little less -- about $5 trillion in our trust funds for social security and government retirement program. in total, it is a little over $15 trillion outstanding. but the public probably sees about $10 trillion. of that, a little less than half

its international hands -- is in international dance. we have been fortunate in that the world sees the u.s. as a safe haven. while the treasury market is large, it has enjoyed tremendous support from the markets. at the beginning of the 2000's, we would have about two bidders show up for every dollar. today that's over three. host: is that influenced by what we are seeing and reading about these days including the opinion and their debt crisis? guest: i think it has. when markets are worried, any firm, they often retreat to assets they see as a safe haven. the treasury market has benefited from that. our deficits peaked in 2009, are

borrowing has gradually been coming down from the peak of the financial crisis. and economic crisis as than has happened, rates have continued to come down. that is a reflection of people being concerned about chris cooley and calling into what they see as a very safe asset. host: west virginia, richard on our independent line, good morning. caller: yes, the government has kicked the disabled veterans to the curb on housing. i am trying to buy a place. 20 years i served in the military don't count for nothing. i went through a divorce, which mess up my credit. i am retired military, retired state of alaska, retired state of virginia. i'm on social security and i cannot even buy a home. yet you all loan nations to

foreign nations and build them up and you will not take care of your veterans. i cannot understand it. guest: i think the housing market is one of the toughest problems we face as a country. the treasury is trying to do its part to help struggling homeowners. i will not bore you with a long list of housing programs we have put into place, but we have largely been focused on trying to bring the market back to stabilize prices, to help struggling homeowners either refinance or modify their loans so they can stay in their homes, and to strengthen communities by doing that. on the access to credit side, we can do more to try to unable financial institutions, government guarantee programs for mortgage assistance, to make sure they are reaching the target populations. i do think that one of the

positive features in the housing market that i see today is the level of interest rates and affordability of home mortgages. i hope that you are able to get a mortgage. host: this is on twitter -- guest: we do have elevated debt as a result of the recent economic downturn, financial crisis. i think we are on a good path as revenues are growing again, as outlays are ggoing down. as we pull back the tremendous fiscal support provided to the economy after the financial crisis, i think now is the time as we hand off the baton to the private sector, to make sure we are securing growth for this country so we can deal with the long-term fiscal trajectory. the president's budget provides over $4 trillion of their

seductions over the next 10 years. the key is we have to secure growth in the short term so that we can increase our revenues, particularly from the private sector, so we can pay down our debt, reduce our deficits. it is not something you can do overnight, and having a plan, having a credible plan for reducing deficits over the long term, bring in our deficits down, which have been coming down since 2009, but putting in place the structural changes we need to take to get to a better outcome over the next 10 years is the keynote. host: what type of growth has to be seen? guest: we are forecasting growth this year slightly above 2% and increasing in out years from their. the forecasts are pretty conservative. they're not forecasting growth that is above long-term trends. but we need to see that and keep that in place to grow the economy and to get the ability to bring deficits down. host: waterloo, iowa, david on

the democratic line. caller: good morning, mary. i've got a question. i see that most people in treasury have had work in things like bank of america and companies like that. you seem to be a very nice lady. what i am thinking is what would happen if people came out of a university and instead of going right into the financial institution -- i know that's where the money is, so i don't begrudge anybody making a dollar -- but let's pay them a comparable wage in the government. that would be millions of dollars. the thing i am thinking is in the long run it could be

cheaper. there's no allegiance to to a company. what do you think? about think guest: first, i would say most people at the treasury are career government staff and they are a tremendous resource to the country and to the. the department's people like me who come in as political appointees come from a wide range of backgrounds. some of us comes from financial sector jobs and some come from other backgrounds. but i think the key is getting some interaction between the career betweenwho worked through administrations and worked through thick and thin and understand infrastructure of our financial system very well, working with policy folks. to answer your question, first, it's very valuable to have some practical experience from the financial sector.

needs to be balanced with long- term career perspective on how the government works. whthe public service element of this is key. it's beneficial for me to have this experience, to be in the public sector, and to look at things from the lens of the government and to see how that works. if i would be very supportive of people taking stints in government service and taking stands in the private sector to improve the understanding of the two sides of the equation. host: north carolina, robert on our republican line. caller: good morning. i made my living in the commercial paper market. with all these problems we have been encountering, something has been in my mindwho has the responsibility for mortgages that are originated by brokers, as in all, banks, however, that were purchased by fannie mae, freddie mac? has the absolute

responsibility for mortgages originated in the private sector and purchased by fannie mae or freddie mac? there is a housing regulator, the federal housing financial reporting that oversee the two government sponsored enterprises that you mentioned. so i think they have the ultimate oversight for looking at the processes and the mortgages that they buy and guarantee. host: in a few minutes at 10:00 this morning the senate will take a look at the dig morgan chase financial regulation oversight. jamie dimon set to testify in. that will take place on the senate side. people are gathering for that discussion right now. -- j.p. morgan financial regulation and oversight. guest: regulators are looking

at j.p. morgan activities. the volcker rule is still under construction. or no. want to say yes i think the volcker rule does very important things in terms of asking firms to decide their hedging activity, to understand it. i think most people would say and j.p. morgan would say it was a failure of risk management. the vocal role requires firms to have very strong compliance and risk management systems to understand hedging. host: you spoke of finalization of writing the rules this year. is there a time frame? guest: i don't have a decision on that. i think we are working very hard to get it done. it is not in the hands of treasury to write the rules. it is in our hands to coordinate the rule. my hope is that we get it done this year. host: on our independent line,

david. miller. hello, ms. ma thank you for your service and for trying to explain our financial situation in america. what i would like to say is that here in north carolina they are paying illegal aliens under the table in cash money rather than them having a social security card or anything that they would pay into social security. how is that saving the economy? they're just giving them cash money rather than paying them through social security. if you can explain that to me? i will hang up and hear your response. thank you. guest: well, part of the

treasury that is focused on some areas that are not as specific as the point that you raised, but clearly we need to make sure we are collecting taxes from people that are employed in the u.s. and that we are falling all the rules that are in place for employment taxes. host: there's a story in the wall street journal this morning talking about tax receipts rising and narrowing the federal deficit. guest: that was yesterday, we released a monthly treasury statement that puts out the monthly results for revenues and outlays. year over year, revenues have gone a little over 5%, which is a sign of health in the economy, an important step to reducing the deficit. host: the senate banking, housing, and urban affairs committee, in a hearing scheduled to start it 10:00 today, jamie dimon of j.p. morgan testifying. we will go to that event when it starts.

now to the republican line. caller: i was wondering, what do you think about going back to prior to 1913 where our treasury department could go on currency -- \ host: i apologize. the hearing is set to start. final thoughts on what you do as far as what folks can expect from your department when it comes to rules of domestic finance? guest: we will continue to press for the things treasury is all about, which is promoting economic growth, ensuring financial stability for our system, we will work hard on the financial regulatory reform that we talked about, on housing market, and a good fiscal outcome for the country. host: mary miller, thanks very much. we go to the senate banking, housing, and urban affairs committee, the hearing about to begin. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> i would like to call the meeting to order and then suspended until the chairman has arrived. the capitol police to restore order. thank you. [man shouting} >> this man is a criminal! .e can't get this thing wrong >>